LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the named school in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, the Council’s decision-making, or the Council’s poor communication. Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of assessing the complainant’s daughter’s needs and in producing her Education Health and Care plan. The matters about which she complains could have been the subject of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability, or are not separable from those matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the lack of education provision for her child. This is because part of the complaint is late and the Council offered a suitable remedy for injustice caused to Y. We would not achieve more for Mrs X if we investigated the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal in 2023 and annual review in 2024. She also complained about delays in securing provision from the Plan and direct payments. We found the Council was at fault for delays in finalising the Plans, direct payments and securing some of the provision. This caused Mrs X and her daughter distress and meant she missed out on some of the provision. The Council offered to pay Mrs X a remedy as well as pay a remedy to her daughter for the provision she missed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about prior notification of roadworks because the courts are better placed to consider the issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan, or the content of the Plan, including how the Council communicated about this matter. This is because the Council has upheld Mrs X’s complaint, apologised and offered a suitable remedy for Mrs X’s injustice. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s fire authority attending his property. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice and there are other bodies better placed to consider the issues Mr X has raised.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council named an inappropriate school in her son’s, who I will refer to as D, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and failed to deliver section F provision in the Plan to him. She also complained the Council’s communication with her was poor. There was fault by the Council. It did not ensure D received section F provision in his EHC Plan. It also did not arrange alternative provision for D when it was aware he was not receiving regular full-time education or later when he was permanently excluded. The Council’s communication with Miss C was also poor. Beca

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review in February 2024 and delayed issuing a final EHC Plan after an emergency review in August 2024. The Council did not issue a final EHC Plan until March 2025. The delay frustrated Ms X’s right of appeal and caused distress to the whole family. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to pay a suitable financial remedy.

Summary: Ms J complains about delays in the Council’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son. And that, after an appeal, the Council refused to refund fees they paid for her son’s education. We do not find fault as the Council carried out its assessment within statutory timeframes. The question of fees is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as Ms J has used her appeal right.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding the provision of suitable alternative educational provision to child Y. This is because Mrs X appealed the content of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan to the First-tier Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate any matter that was connected to the appeal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her child, Y when they stopped attending school due to anxiety. The Council was at fault, it failed to consider whether it owed Y a Section 19 duty and failed to maintain an oversight over their education while Y was not attending school. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her son, A’s, Education, Health and Care Plan and communication with her about it. We found the Council has already taken appropriate action for its poor communication with Ms X and delays in the annual review process between. We found no other fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s adult social care department. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being escalated to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing the annual review of her child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan, removed special educational provision from the Plan and did not provide School A with enough funding. We found the Council was at fault for the delayed annual review. The Council has apologised and offered a symbolic payment which is an adequate remedy for the avoidable confusion and delay in appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide bespoke post-16 transport to school for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to his child being removed from his care by the child’s mother in 2020. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has not managed her father’s house properly as it left the house to rot and fall into a state of disrepair, and refused to allow her access to the property to manage it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, Ms X is not a suitable representative to make the complaint on Mr Z’s behalf.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to offer an appropriate financial remedy after it upheld her complaint about the lack of support provided to her son, who I will refer to as D, for roughly three years. The Council was at fault. The financial remedy offered by the Council does not reflect the level of injustice caused to Mrs C and D. Because of the fault, Mrs C and D suffered distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments and issue a staff briefing.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M’s complaint about her son B’s education because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal and we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has appealed to the Tribunal about the same matter.

Summary: We found the Council at fault for significant delays during the annual review process of Mrs X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mrs X and her son avoidable distress and caused Y to miss out on provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a Blue Badge and the assessment caused him physical pain. I have found procedural fault in the Council’s Blue Badge assessment which creates doubt about the outcome reached. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, and make service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet his eligible care needs for three months and it failed to attend borough council meetings about his housing. We found there was a lack of care provision which was Service Failure by the Council. We also found there was a failure to attend housing meetings after agreeing to do so. This was a lack of partnership working. The fault by the Council led to distress to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, make a distress payment and work on an action plan to avoid the same issues happening again.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about a child and family assessment following an allegation his mother harmed his daughter because we cannot achieve the outcome he is looking for. There are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns, and there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the assessment process, an Education Health and Care Plan wording or the Council’s compliance with a Tribunal’s directions orders. We cannot investigate issues in a Tribunal appeal. We will not investigate a delay in issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan as we are unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has offered as a remedy.